ELLICOTT CITY, MD – Howard County Executive Calvin Ball today announced that after careful review of Howard County Council Bills (CB) 58-2026 and 59-2026, as well as consideration of public testimony, he has decided to veto both bills pursuant to Howard County Charter Section 209.
CB58-2026, Grants – County Grant Agreements – Grant Agreements for the Purchase, Construction of Improvements, Development, or Redevelopment
When introduced in September 2026, CB58-2026 was a broad sweeping bill that would have significantly changed how Howard County Government issues, awards, and administers grants of all types to nonprofit organizations. In addition to containing significant new requirements and hardships on nonprofit grantees, the bill would have codified and duplicated several existing requirements and established inconsistent standards for nonprofits that receive grants from different government funding entities.
The development of the bill was done without sufficient community and stakeholder engagement, as evidenced by the broad coalition of organizations that testified about the negative impact the legislation would have on Howard County’s nonprofit sector. In public testimony, several nonprofit organizations urged the Council to oppose the legislation and instead called for a comprehensive and thoughtful study of the County’s grant funding processes.
During its final legislative session on October 30, 2026, the Council passed an amended version of CB58-2026. The amended language made it so the legislation:
- Only applied to capital grants awarded to nonprofit organizations for the purchase, construction of improvements, development, or redevelopment of real property;
- That certain requirements only be applied to grants of greater than $1.5 million; and
- Included more than 20 requirements for nonprofit grantees receiving capital funding, including requirements for long-term use agreements, significant non-county matching funds, financial guarantees or bonds, repayment provisions, and more.
As Ball noted in his letter to the Council regarding CB58-2026, “it is unclear where the arbitrary threshold of $1.5 million originated, as well as why certain standards should be applied to capital grants of more than $1.5 million that would not be required of capital grants below $1.5 million.” Ball further added that, “it became clear that the true intention of the bill was to target a specific project that had received funding from the County – including approval by the County Council – in prior fiscal years.” To note, as amended, the bill would not affect any grants awarded in prior fiscal years.
The County regularly partners with nonprofit entities to deliver capital projects that promote and serve the public good and in many instances. Moreover, the County has deployed grant funding in excess of $1.5 million to support capital projects that serve our community in important ways, including:
- $15 million awarded to the Johns Hopkins Howard County Medical System to renovate and open a new 29-bed observation unit at the hospital, providing important capacity to our emergency healthcare system;
- $2 million to the Community Action Council of Howard County (CAC) to purchase land for the construction of CAC’s Route One Corridor Campus, which will include a new Food Bank and early childhood learning space for families enrolled in Head Start and Early Head Start;
- More than $1.5 million to the Howard County Veterans’ Foundation to support the construction of the Howard County Veterans and Military Families Monument at the Columbia Lakefront; and
- Regular grant awards exceeding $1.5 million for the purchase, construction, and redevelopment of affordable housing communities, including projects like Patuxent Commons, which provides affordable housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities living in Howard County.
Accountability, transparency, and trust in government processes are key priorities of my administration. When we entrust public funds to nonprofit organizations to deliver services, create community facilities, and support our neighbors, those organizations should be held to a high standard. However, CB58-2026 fails to meaningfully advance responsible solutions to strengthen those shared goals of accountability and trust. I agree with the recommendations of ACS and many other reputable nonprofit organizations that work tirelessly to deliver services to our community. Updates to the County’s grantmaking process should be done after thorough engagement of all partners involved, ensuring that policymakers have both a strong understanding of the County’s grantmaking process and the right solutions to meet the needs of our community. Unfortunately, CB58-2026 does not rise to that standard.
CB59-2026 – Solar Collector Facilities – Review Required on Agricultural Land
As Ball outlined in his letter to the Council regarding CB59-2026, he vetoed the because it:
- Contradicts Maryland’s 2025 Renewable Energy Certainty Act (RECA);
- Aggravates an uncertain investment climate potentially delaying or halting some $83 million in pending solar projects already well-advanced in the planning process;
- Additional requirements are superfluous because the County already retains sufficient authority to manage solar development on agricultural preservation parcels; and
- Could significantly undermine Howard County’s energy independence and affordability just as the community struggles with skyrocketing energy costs.
RECA requires local jurisdictions to “process the site development plan application as a permitted use subject to the review standards in Subsection 4-205 of the Land Use Article.” RECA classifies these projects (including one to two megawatt (MW) projects) as a “permitted use” rather than leaving them subject to discretionary approval. RECA Subsection 7-218(c)(1) establishes the specific approval pathway for the one to two MW tier solar projects, in that construction may proceed once “the local jurisdiction verifies that the proposed construction meets all of the site requirements under subsection (f).” Moreover, RECA Subsection 7-218(h)(1)(i)–(ii) broadly bars local jurisdictions from adopting zoning laws that “prohibit the construction or operation” of solar stations, or from denying site plans that meet the Subsection (f) requirements. This means that discretionary denial authority is not available for projects found to comply with RECA’s standardized site design requirements. If CB59 was enacted and challenged, the County may have to defend an ordinance that a court could ultimately strike down, potentially putting more than a dozen pending solar projects valued at more than $83 million at risk.
Furthermore, CB59-2026 comes during a precarious time for solar projects across our county, state, and nation. Recent federal tax law changes have compressed the runway for solar projects to qualify for the federal investment tax credit to a hard December 31, 2027 deadline, with no extensions. In its fiscal analysis of the bill, the Couty identified nearly $25 million in federal tax credits at risk due to project delays that may arise with its passage. Moreover, by potentially delaying or thwarting proposed solar development across 270 acres of agricultural land, the bill could deprive local farmers of predictable income streams totaling about $16 million over 25 years. The bill could also harm the county’s workforce as every project supports electricians, installers, technicians, and contractors and a construction freeze could cause a hiring freeze.
The bill’s requirements are also superfluous because the County already has the regulatory tools this bill erroneously asserts are missing. The County’s Department of Planning and Zoning’s (DPZ) July 2025 policy memo explains RECA's requirements in detail, as well as provides most of what the bill’s requested report would produce. The policy memo is explicit that RECA does not change the County’s processes for ECP submission, Alternative Compliance, stormwater management, and forest conservation requirements. Moreover, the policy memo makes clear that the County already retains meaningful authority over parcels enrolled in its Agricultural Land Preservation Program (ALPP). The DPZ policy memo further lays out RECA’s one to five MW standards in granular, specific detail, exact setback distances, fencing specifications, visual buffer width and planting requirements, bond percentages and release schedules, and terms for decommissioning.
Furthermore, as Ball noted in his letter, “by delaying and thus potentially thwarting commercial solar development, CB59 could significantly undermine our energy independence and affordability as skyrocketing energy costs negatively impact Howard County residents and businesses. It would also undermine local climate progress as the climate crisis is worsening.”
CB59 would foster greater uncertainty and potential delays for project developers and financiers. As Ball pointed out, PJM has warned of capacity shortfalls and reliability risk across its 13-state region, including Maryland. These shortfalls could be circumvented by locally-sited solar electricity generation, which helps reduce line losses, adds voltage support, and diversifies points of failure for the specific communities it serves. Furthermore, community solar projects committed to serving low- and moderate-income subscribers would be delayed, working against energy-affordability goals.
Maryland's solar generation target under its Renewable Portfolio Standard requires 14.5 percent of electricity from in-state solar by 2030; the state roughly halfway there. However, by creating greater uncertainty around commercial solar projects, we are slowing progress to meet time-bound state and local goals. As outlined in our June 2023 Climate Forward plan, Howard County is committed to deploying 437 MW of solar energy generation by 2030, which would help Maryland attain its solar goals, as well as the County’s goal of reducing its climate pollution by 60 percent by 2030. At 181 MW today, we are roughly 41 percent of the way to that goal. However, fulfilling the County's climate commitments depends on exactly the kind of solar deployment that would be effectively thwarted by the uncertainty and delays CB59 would inject into the energy market.
Finally, Ball noted in his letter that “this bill risks undermining the long-term health of Howard County’s agricultural sector, slowing projects that would benefit the long-term preservation and sustainability of Howard County’s farming operations.” As public testimony revealed, CB59-2026 may slow progress on several agrivoltaic projects that pair active farming with solar development for 25 to 30 years on agricultural land, even though they would directly serve the farmland-preservation goal espoused by the bill’s proponents. Moreover, the bill’s imprecise definition of solar energy facilities could also halt progress on rooftop and parking-canopy solar projects that may involve no disturbance to agricultural land or rural communities.